Third-party certification of forest operations and wood products is picking up steam. Large new tracts of land are being certified, including a number of publicly owned forests. A few forest
managers—as opposed to the lands themselves—now carry blanket certifications, covering any forests they manage. New products are carrying chain-of-custody certification stamps. Fueling all this is a growing awareness of certification and an increasing demand for wood products that environmentally conscious consumers can feel good about. All this is not going unnoticed by the more mainstream wood products industry; a number of efforts are underway to shift conventional forest management—or at least the public’s perception of it—towards greater sustainability. This
article takes a look at some of the more important recent developments with forest and wood products certification and offers suggestions on how to increase our use of certified wood and support this important trend.
Background on certification
This Headwaters bass guitar crafted by Dave Maize in Talent, Oregon is made from 100% certified woods.
Third-party forest certification is still in its infancy. It was born of the environmental movement as a mechanism for creating market demand for products coming out of well-managed forests. The idea was to develop a mechanism for verifying or “certifying” responsibly managed forestry operations along with a labeling system to recognize the products from those forests. The nonprofit SmartWood Program, the world’s first certifying organization, was founded in 1989 as a program of the Rainforest Alliance in New York City. Shortly thereafter, the for-profit company Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) was founded with a focus that extended to a wide range of products—not just forests.
In 1992 the Menominee Tribal lands in northern Wisconsin became the first forest in the United States to attain third-party certification. The certification was carried out by both SCS and SmartWood.
Source: Rainforest Alliance In order to achieve standardization among the various certifying bodies emerging both in the U.S. and abroad, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was founded in 1993 in Toronto. In 1994, FSC adopted its Principles and Criteria for forest certification (see
EBN
Vol. 3, No. 5). Revised in 1995 with provisions for plantation forestry, this document has become the uniform standard that all affiliated third-party forest certification organizations now follow. SmartWood and SCS remain the only two certification bodies in the U.S., though SmartWood carries out certification through a wide network of regional organizations in addition to its own staff. SGS Forestry Qualifor Programme and the Soil Association in Great Britain and Skal in the Netherlands are also approved by FSC to certify forests. SGS, SmartWood and SCS all certify forest operations worldwide, while the other two operate more locally.
As of mid-October 1997, 9.3 million acres (3.8 million ha) of forest had been certified in 17 countries—an area roughly equal to that of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The number of acres of certified forest in the U.S.—1.6 million acres (645,000 ha)—is expected to roughly double by year’s end, as large parcels in Pennsylvania and Minnesota gain final approval. By comparison, in the United States alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that there are approximately 483 million acres (196 million ha) of commercial timberland, roughly 28% publicly owned and 72% privately owned—thus, only one-third of one percent of timberland in the U.S. is currently certified.
For an end-user to trust that the products he or she is buying come from well-managed forests, certification of forest operations is only the first step. The other component is
chain-of-custody certification of the wood products. This involves careful tracking of logs and wood products as they travel through the production process. This tracking either necessitates separate product streams in mills that are audited as part of the third-party certification process, or special tagging of certified material as it moves through the mill alongside uncertified stock. But the end-products from such a chain-of-custody certification process can be marketed as environmentally responsible and may bring higher prices.
Wood products certification is a lot like organic food certification, except it’s more difficult to define and oversee. With organic farming, the criteria are very clear—only chemicals that meet certain standards are allowed—and the verification is relatively easy to measure. With forest and wood-products certification, the differences between responsible and irresponsible forestry are much less distinct—certifying a forestry operation requires that the certifier make many judgments in the field. Also, unlike organic farming where the resultant product is distinctly different from the inorganic counterpart (no pesticide residues, for example) and believed by many to be healthier, lumber coming from a certified forest will be little different from non-certified lumber—though certification proponents argue that better forestry practices produce higher quality lumber.
Certifying large tracts of timberland can cost anywhere from 16¢ to 50¢ per acre (7¢/ha to 21¢/ha) for the initial certification, and 4¢ to 6¢ per acre (1.6¢/ha to 2.5¢/ha) for an annual audit. A large landowner may have to spend more than $100,000 to have a forest certified—a sizable investment.
Industry certifying industry in the U.S.
Third-party certification involves careful on-the-ground examination of forestry practices, as is being done by this SmartWood assessment team.
Source: Rainforest Alliance The certification process described above is referred to as “third-party certification” to indicate that an outside organization with no direct stake in the outcome is doing the certification. Another approach is for a trade association to handle the “certification” based on landowner reporting, but not actual on-the-ground examination of forestry practices. This is what the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) is doing with its Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
AF&PA is the primary trade association representing industrial timber companies in the U.S., and the organization currently represents roughly 90% of the industry. AF&PA’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative, now in its third year, is a mandatory set of forestry guidelines for members (see
EBN
Vol. 4, No. 3). Companies are required to file annual reports demonstrating how the guidelines are being followed. Since 1996, about two dozen companies have been dismissed from the AF&PA membership ranks or have voluntarily resigned due to noncompliance or an unwillingness to deal with additional reporting requirements of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
AF&PA’s program represents an important step in the direction of sustainable forestry by the industry, though many argue that it doesn’t go far enough in terms of ecosystem management. But the biggest problem with this program, say environmentalists, is that it does not include real, on-the-ground verification of the quality of forestry practices. There is also no public disclosure requirement for the annual performance reports. David Ford, who is Executive Director of the Certified Forest Products Council, told
EBN that the Sustainable Forestry Initiative “does not, in fact, meet the needs of the buyers we are representing.”
Until recently, the Western Wood Products Association (WWPA) played an important role in maintaining high awareness of environmental concerns within the forest industry. While not operating a certification program, WWPA was conducting an extensive project to carry out a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of wood from member-company forests, and they reached out to environmentally aware users through an extensive Woods Works™ advertising campaign. Unfortunately, the LCA program and nearly all marketing efforts of WWPA were recently terminated (see
EBN
Vol. 6, No. 8)—apparently due to political pressure from one or two member companies. With WWPA out of the picture, “AF&PA will call the shots for the American forestry industry regarding environmental initiatives,” noted a WWPA source who wished to remain anonymous. This development could actually bode well for true third-party certification, because the WWPA change could be seen as reducing the environmental credibility of the mainstream industry in the United States.
A different approach in Canada
The commercial timber industry in Canada is taking a different—and potentially far more comprehensive—approach with environmental certification. A Canadian industry coalition approached the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) in the early 1990s about developing a voluntary standard for “sustainable forest management” in Canada. Out of this effort grew the CAN/CSA z808 and z809 voluntary standards, which were adopted in October 1996. While the method of forest “registering” based on these standards is quite different from FSC certification, what they do could be quite similar, according to Ellen Pekilis of CSA. As for verification, “there absolutely will be an on-the-ground component,” said Pekilis.
In keeping with the model established by ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 9000 (quality control) and ISO 14000 (environmental management) system standards, the CSA is a system standard, not a product standard. Rather than setting performance requirements for various indicators, like the FSC’s Principles and Criteria, this standard establishes a process that is designed to lead to improvements in forest management. One step in the registration process for each operation is setting the goals and targets for that operation. Although it will be organized by the company seeking registration, the process must be open to the full range of stakeholders, and the company is bound by the goals and targets emerging from this public process.
Also in line with the ISO model, the registration process is not product-based, and labeling of products with the CSA standard is specifically forbidden. “There will not be a product label,” said Pekilis. Once timber companies begin going through the registration process, what they will provide is assurances to commercial purchasers that they are working to improve the sustainability of their forestry. Pekilis does not know how the registration might be tied into marketing, and she pointed out that marketing is not the role of CSA. In this sense, the CSA standard really doesn’t replace the product certification function provided by the FSC. Pekilis believes that it will be at least 18 months before a forest product company goes through the registration process. “They’re all looking at each other to see who will go first,” she said.
The ISO has no intention of developing its own forest management standard, but it has seen significant pressure to provide some guidance on how to apply the ISO 14000 standards to forestry operations, as these standards were developed primarily with manufacturing in mind. Among other documents, the ISO will likely reference the CSA standards as such guidelines. If the ISO 14000 series becomes as widely adopted by industry as the ISO 9000 series has, the Canadian approach could offer an alternative to the current third-party, product-based certification. Exactly how the Canadian system might be used—given the ban on product labeling—remains to be seen, however.
While in theory there is a big difference between the performance-based approach of the FSC and the systems approach of the CSA, in practice these certifications may not be so far apart. On the ground, FSC-based certifiers have a fair amount of leeway to point out areas where a forest operation needs improvement, and to grant a certification that is conditional upon improvements that would be verified through annual review. Those involved with the process report that foresters who go through a certification review almost always appreciate the process and feel that their operation has benefited from the outside perspective. In addition, the level of organization and documentation needed for an FSC-accredited certification often demands that foresters get much better at understanding their own operations and process flows—which helps both their forestry and their financial and resource management.
One of the most exciting developments within the FSC-based third-party forest certification movement is the recent certification of a number of forest resource
managers, as opposed to actual tracts of land. Small parcels of forest land, which are common throughout much of the country, have usually been prohibitively expensive to certify, due to the cost of visiting the sites. For this reason, both SmartWood and SCS have now approved blanket certifications for several resource managers. Through careful examination of the forestry practices of these individuals, the two certifying organizations have been able to certify the foresters for all lands they manage.
Going through this certification process is neither easy nor cheap. Forester Chip Chapman, who became the second SmartWood-certified resource manager in January 1997 (the first was California forester Craig Blencowe—see
EBN
Vol. 5, No. 4) estimates that he spent half-time over a two-year period in correspondence, meetings, and documentation to obtain his certification status. A member of Smartwood’s assessment team reports that they noticed significant improvements in Chap-man’s overall forest management during that time, as he became sensitive to issues to which he had previously paid little attention. With sliding fees for resource manager certification, SmartWood estimates the initial cost to be $5,000 to $15,000, plus another $750 to $1,000 annually for a one-day audit and an administration fee. SCS currently lists three resource managers as being certified, all in California.
Certifying public forest lands
Until very recently, all of the forest properties certified in the U.S. have been privately owned. This conspicuous absence of certified publicly owned forest lands has now ended. On April 30, 1997 the 58,000 acres surrounding the Quabbin Reservoir in north central Massachusetts became the first publicly owned property to gain forest certification. The Quabbin lands, which are managed by the Metropolitan District Commission in Boston, were certified by SmartWood through the Northeast Natural Resource Center of the National Wildlife Federation (a nonprofit participant in the SmartWood Network).
SmartWood has also completed a certification review of 581,000 acres (1.4 million ha) of public forest lands in Aitkin County, Minnesota, two-thirds of which is state-owned and the rest county-owned. Assuming final approvals are made, this certification should be issued in November.
SCS is also proceeding rapidly with certification of publicly owned lands, reviewing 1.2 million acres of state forest lands in Pennsylvania. Secretary John Oliver of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources called this a “landmark occasion for Pennsylvania. The results of this review will likely serve as a national model for future public forestlands management,” he said. The review began in January 1997 and is expected to be completed in November. If approved, this will be the second certified forest in Pennsylvania; Kane Hardwoods, a division of Collins Pine, received SCS certification in 1995. Support for the certification of state forests in Pennsyl- vania was provided by several private foundations with strong interest in certification, including the Heinz Endowment, the Headwaters Charitable Trust, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
This plywood from Collins Pine contains 100% certified material.
Photo: Collins Pine Many in the certified wood industry have been frustrated that under FSC regulations it’s all or nothing—a product has had to contain 100% certified wood to carry an FSC label. With paper products, 100% recycled content is not required to gain green marketing advantage; why was 100% certified wood content required to be able to promote the green characteristics of a wood product? Proponents for a change in the FSC regulations argued that lowering the threshold for listing a product as certified would open up new markets and, as
Understory editor Scott Landis pointed out in the Winter 1997 issue, help keep the certification movement from “becoming stranded in the niche market from which it has been struggling to emerge.”
On the other hand, a small but vocal minority in the certification movement argued that lowering the standard for certification of wood products threatened to dilute the value of certification for everybody. This debate has simmered since the formation of FSC, becoming quite heated at times. At a meeting this fall, the Forest Stewardship Council Board adopted a provisional policy that allows manufactured products with as little as 70% certified wood content to carry the FSC certification trademark.
This change should make a big difference in marketing of certified wood products, particularly composite materials that include other woods that are not certified. Now, for example, a chair that is made entirely of certified wood with the exception of leg braces—because a source of certified wood of that species was not available—will be able to carry the certification stamp and market the chair as certified. But this change is not enough, suggest some in the industry.
Wade Mosby of Collins Pine, which was among the first commercial forest products company to go through a certification process, argues for a lower threshold, at least for composite products. “If we’re going to entice people to get into the composite business,” he says, “it’s got to be a moving target.” He suggests that the bar should be set fairly low right now, when sources of certified wood and fiber are very limited, then the bar should be raised as more forests become certified. With the composite siding made by Collins Products, for example, a percentage of the fiber is from certified wood, but it’s nowhere near 70%. “We will have to push other technical attributes, not environmental,” Mosby told
EBN. “It’s a damn shame.” Due to the costs of segregating and separately warehousing certified wood chips, achieving 70% certified content would be very difficult, he said.
Mosby suggests that setting a lower standard might entice one of the big players to become certified, which could have a ripple effect throughout the entire U.S. wood products industry. “I’m a big supporter of FSC,” he said, “but sometimes there’s too much idealism and not enough realism.” Bill Mankin, who represents several large environmental groups on forestry issues through the Washington, D.C.-based Global Forest Policy Project, suggests that it is the role of the FSC to set very high standards: “The FSC already has made a significant splash worldwide,” Mankin notes, “essentially setting the pace in terms of what publicly acceptable forest management requires.”
Marketing certified wood
Using certification to recognize good forestry practices is only half of the battle. Equally important is the creation of markets for certified wood products. Toward that end, about a dozen certified wood buyers groups have been organized internationally. Certified wood buyers groups have been especially successful in western Europe, and in particular in the U.K. There the World Wildlife Fund was able to organize several large purchasers of wood and paper products into a consortium committed to buying certified wood products as soon as these become available. Such a statement from large buyers was enough to get the attention of wood product suppliers, and two of Sweden’s largest forest products companies have since become certified to FSC standards.
In the United States the recent creation of the nonprofit Certified Forest Products Council (from a merger of the Forest Products Buyers Group and the Good Wood Alliance) should significantly increase the availability of—and demand for—certified wood. The new organization, based in Beaverton, Oregon, has a broad objective of promoting responsible forest product buying practices throughout North America, which will improve forest management both in the U.S. and worldwide.
Much has been made of the potential price premium that certified wood products might carry. Increasingly, the evidence is that this premium rarely materializes as the producer might have hoped. David Ford, who was hired earlier in the year to direct the Forest Products Buyers Group and is now the chief executive officer of the new organization, takes a realistic view of this issue: “There is evidence out there that people say they’re willing to pay more for certified products,” he says. “But the experience of the people that are moving certified products in the marketplace is that these buyers are fairly fickle.”
Even though they may not be able to charge higher prices for their product, companies with certified products are finding increased access to market. As in the example of the WWF-UK buyers group, purchasers may not be willing to pay more, but—all else being equal—they will go out of their way to choose certified wood over noncertified wood. Thus, there may come a point when companies seek certification out of fear of losing market share, rather than as a means of standing out in the market and getting higher prices. If this turns out to be the case, the CSA/ISO approach of certifying forestry operations on their management systems may prove a viable alternative to the FSC’s more cumbersome chain-of-custody based certification of actual wood products.
Regardless of whether independently certified forest products ever become more than a niche market, the concept of certified, well-managed forests has raised the ante considerably in discussions about forest management practices around the world. Whereas not long ago industry groups argued that sustained-yield—cutting no more wood fiber than is replenished by annual growth —was “sustainable,” now broader environmental and social goals are expressed by organizations everywhere. Organizations that have evolved in this direction include the International Tropical Timber Organization, various forestry initiatives of the United Nations, and other national and international bodies. The idea of outside certification itself, initially rejected by governments in many countries, has since become generally accepted as a positive approach.
This evolution in forest management goals and guidelines could stall, however, if independent certification fails to continue to gain steam. As noted above, the amount of certified forest within the U.S. may double in the next few months. Large new areas are also being certified in other parts of the world. The supply of certified wood, which has been fairly limited until now, is finally becoming substantial. The U.S. construction market could give certified wood products the shot-in-the-arm they need to leap to the next level in availability, or it could give them the cold shoulder. The future of the world’s forests may be at stake.
The Forest Certification Handbook by Christopher Upton and Stephan Bass; 1996, Delray Beach, Florida: St. Lucie Press (ISBN 1-884015-89-1)
Certification of Forest Products: Issues and Perspectives, Virgilio M. Viana et al., editors; 1996, Washington, D.C.: Island Press (ISBN 1-55963-494-4)
(1997, November 1). Wood Products Certification: A Progress Report. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/feature/wood-products-certification-progress-report
